Is there a distinction in your mind and if so what is it?

shortchanged_2

CLAPTON wrote: »

selling council houses didn't change the number of properties in the country by a single house

No it didn't. But with an increasing population and the opportunity to replace the stock sold off with the funds from selling the council stock, the housing market in the UK has been seriously mismanaged.

Better_Days

CLAPTON wrote: »

selling council houses didn't change the number of properties in the country by a single house

Am I right in thinking though, that selling council houses reduced the stock of affordable rented housing, which pushed up rents in the private sector. This in turn encouraged an increase in BTL (who could see a better return on their capital in letting than in other sectors). As a result this increased demand for houses and pushed up prices more than they would have been otherwise?

Also my understanding is that Local Authorities were not permitted to build more social housing with the money from RTB (which would have been the logical thing to do), which has excerbated the shortage in housing. A variable is that we don't know how many houses Local Authorities would have built had it not been for RTB.

Just thinking trying to get my head round it all.......so we are now in the position where one of the consequences of RTB is that the stock of affordable rented and owned properties has been reduced?

JencParker

chucky wrote: »

The drop in house prices in 2008 and the current situation were not caused by loose lending combined with a lack of house building.

It was caused by a global financial crisis that it looks like you obviously didn't know happened.

You sound like the Labour party !

So what caused the global financial crisis ?

wotsthat

JencParker wrote: »

So what caused the global financial crisis ?

Gordon Brown and Kirsty Allsop?

CLAPTON

Better_Days wrote: »

Am I right in thinking though, that selling council houses reduced the stock of affordable rented housing, which pushed up rents in the private sector. This in turn encouraged an increase in BTL (who could see a better return on their capital in letting than in other sectors). As a result this increased demand for houses and pushed up prices more than they would have been otherwise?

Also my understanding is that Local Authorities were not permitted to build more social housing with the money from RTB (which would have been the logical thing to do), which has excerbated the shortage in housing. A variable is that we don't know how many houses Local Authorities would have built had it not been for RTB.

Just thinking trying to get my head round it all.......so we are now in the position where one of the consequences of RTB is that the stock of affordable rented and owned properties has been reduced?

It's not a very clear situation.

if a social tenant bought their property under RTB and then lived there, then not much has changed except ownership
-as there is no increase in demand either for rented or owned, I see no reason for private rented property to increase in price


in my view the critical issue is our total housing stock has not kept pace with the growth in population and the growth in expectation (i.e. the number of single people wishing their own property)

the price of rents has increased in large part to the stupid rules concerning Housing Benefit which has encouraged people to enter the rented market via BTL mortgages.

but the main point is we need to build more properties in those areas with a shortage

Better_Days

CLAPTON wrote: »

but the main point is we need to build more properties in those areas with a shortage

Agreed.

So what RTB has done is change the balance between affordable housing and 'market rate' housing? If a social housing tenant exercises their RTB that is one less property in the pool of affordable housing. This change has been facilitated by housing benefit and exacerbated by the factors which you have pointed to such as the increase in single person households and population growth.

With regard to house building - is the problem actually planning or is it more that large builders are sitting on plots of land with planning approved but seeking to maintain profit levels (as is their duty to shareholders) by 'drip feeding' new developments? It seems to me that Local Authorities getting on and building social housing would circumvent this - but presumably that is contrary to political ideology of 'let the market decide'. In the meantime it costs the country a fortune in housing benefit, but presumably partly offset by the increase in SDLT revenue as house prices increase. Hmm.

chucky

MFW_ASAP wrote: »

So this time it isn't different?

The global recession wasn't caused by a speculative UK housing market?

If that's the case, then is shortchanged talking out of his hat again?

It's not a surprise. There's too many frothers on here who don't really understand. I'm never sure if it's because they're very bright or they're a product of their environment.

chucky

JencParker wrote: »

You sound like the Labour party !

So what caused the global financial crisis ?

It wasn't caused by "loose lending by the banks combined with a lack of house building."

chucky

shortchanged wrote: »

No it didn't. But with an increasing population and the opportunity to replace the stock sold off with the funds from selling the council stock, the housing market in the UK has been seriously mismanaged.

Which party in power started and sold off the most council houses?

shortchanged_2

chucky wrote: »

Which party in power started and sold off the most council houses?

I don't really care about the party politics of it all chucky. It's just that whoever carried out the policy, it has turned out to be disastrous for the UK housing market.